{ "entity": "claude-fable-5", "entity_type": "model", "category": "Presentations", "suite": "suite-2026-08-tasks4/presentations", "model": "anthropic/claude-fable-5", "judges": [ "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "x-ai/grok-4.5" ], "judge_protocol": "judge-2026-08b", "anchors": "solo-2026-08-a", "score": 92, "caps": 1, "cost_usd": 0.3968, "started_at": "2026-08-16T14:00:16.232Z", "finished_at": "2026-08-16T14:01:02.138Z", "tasks": [ { "id": "pr1", "name": "Deck from a standing start", "prompt": "Plan a 10-minute presentation to the parish council proposing a zebra crossing outside St Mary's Primary. You have: 2 near-misses reported this term, a 140-signature petition, and an estimated £24,000 cost. Outline 8 slides — for each give a short title and the one point that slide must land. The ask (a feasibility study, not the money) must arrive by slide 3, not the end.", "output": "# Zebra Crossing at St Mary's Primary — 8-Slide Outline (10 mins)\n\n**Timing guide:** ~1 min per slide, holding back 2 minutes for questions after slide 8.\n\n---\n\n**Slide 1 — \"Two Near-Misses in One Term\"**\n*Point to land:* Children have nearly been hit outside St Mary's twice since September — this is a live safety issue, not a hypothetical one.\n(Open with the incidents, briefly and factually. No statistics yet, no ask yet — just make the room feel the problem.)\n\n**Slide 2 — \"140 Parents and Residents Agree\"**\n*Point to land:* This isn't one worried parent — it's a documented community mandate, and the council will be seen to have responded to it or ignored it.\n(Show the petition. If possible, note how many signatories live in the parish/vote locally.)\n\n**Slide 3 — \"Tonight's Ask: Commission a Feasibility Study\"**\n*Point to land:* We are **not asking for £24,000 tonight** — we are asking the council to commission a feasibility study so a decision can be made on evidence, not estimates.\n(This is the pivot slide. State the ask in one sentence, on screen, verbatim. Everything after this slide supports it.)\n\n**Slide 4 — \"What the Study Would Establish\"**\n*Point to land:* A study answers the questions the council would rightly ask anyway — traffic counts, optimal siting, sightlines, and a firm cost — so approving it is low-risk due diligence, not a commitment.\n\n**Slide 5 — \"The £24,000 in Context\"**\n*Point to land:* The estimated cost is real but comparable to other parish safety spending, and the study may identify cheaper options or external funding (county highways, road safety grants, Section 106).\n(Address the money before anyone asks — it defuses the obvious objection.)\n\n**Slide 6 — \"What Doing Nothing Costs\"**\n*Point to land:* The near-misses are documented and minuted from tonight — if a child is injured after the council declined even a study, the reputational and moral cost dwarfs £24,000.\n(Deliver this calmly, not as a threat — frame it as shared risk management.)\n\n**Slide 7 — \"A Simple Path Forward\"**\n*Point to land:* The process is straightforward: approve the study tonight → results in ~8 weeks → informed funding decision at a future meeting. No money is committed until step three.\n(A three-step timeline graphic. Make saying yes feel easy and reversible.)\n\n**Slide 8 — \"The Decision Tonight\"**\n*Point to land:* Repeat the ask word-for-word from slide 3 and request it be put to a vote or minuted as an action: *\"That the council commissions a feasibility study for a zebra crossing outside St Mary's Primary.\"*\n(End on the exact wording you want in the minutes, then open for questions.)\n\n---\n\n**Why this structure works:**\n- The ask lands at slide 3 while attention is highest, then slides 4–7 systematically remove reasons to say no (cost, process, risk).\n- Slides 3 and 8 use identical wording — repetition makes the ask feel settled rather than negotiable.\n- The emotional material (near-misses) opens; the procedural material closes. Councils vote on procedure but remember stories.", "latency_ms": 19143, "cost": 0.05965, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including all required data points and constraints. The structure is highly effective, clear, and perfectly tailored for a busy professional presenting to a parish council." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 7, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets the eight-slide structure and places the feasibility-study ask on slide 3. Clear and practical, but adds unsupported claims about comparable spending, funding, an eight-week timeline, and reputational liability; these should be verifi" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all requirements exactly: 8 slides with titles and single points, ask on slide 3, incorporates given facts, clear and useful for the purpose." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr2", "name": "Speaker notes, not an essay", "prompt": "Write the speaker notes (max 120 words) for a single slide titled 'Why we lost the Henderson account'. Facts: response times slipped from 4 hours to 2 days over six months; the client flagged it twice; a competitor promised same-day. The notes must sound like a person talking, admit the failure plainly, and set up the next slide, which is the fix. Return only the notes.", "output": "So, let's talk about Henderson. The short version: we lost them because we got slow, and we didn't listen when they told us.\n\nSix months ago, we were responding in about four hours. By the end, it was taking two days. That didn't happen overnight — it slipped gradually, and we didn't catch it.\n\nAnd here's the part that stings: they flagged it. Twice. They gave us two clear chances to fix this, and we didn't act.\n\nThen a competitor came in promising same-day responses, and honestly, can we blame them for taking it?\n\nThis one's on us. The good news is the problem is fixable — and that's exactly what the next slide covers.", "latency_ms": 7201, "cost": 0.01283, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It includes all required facts, maintains a conversational and accountable tone, transitions smoothly to the next slide, and strictly adheres to the word count and formatting constraints." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, conversational, and plainly accepts responsibility. Includes all required facts, stays within 120 words, and clearly transitions to the next slide on the fix." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all facts, tone, setup, and length (113 words). Only notes returned. Flawless for purpose." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 120 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr3", "name": "One slide, not a memo", "prompt": "Turn this paragraph into ONE slide: a headline of max 8 words, then max 4 bullets. Paragraph: 'Following an extensive review of our logistics operations, the board has decided to relocate the central warehouse from the Norwich site to a larger facility outside Peterborough. The move is scheduled for the first week of March and is expected to reduce average delivery times to our northern customers by around a day and a half. There will be no redundancies: all fourteen warehouse staff have been offered relocation packages or transfers to the Norwich retail branch. Customers should see no disruption, as the two sites will run in parallel for a fortnight during the changeover.'", "output": "# Central Warehouse Relocating to Peterborough in March\n\n- Move scheduled for first week of March; larger facility replaces Norwich site\n- Northern delivery times cut by ~1.5 days\n- No redundancies — all 14 staff offered relocation or transfer to Norwich retail\n- No customer disruption: both sites run in parallel for two weeks", "latency_ms": 4480, "cost": 0.00812, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, including the constraints of a maximum 8-word headline and maximum 4 bullets. It accurately and concisely captures all key information from the paragraph." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurate, concise one-slide format. Headline has 7 words and there are exactly 4 bullets. It preserves timing, location, delivery benefit, staffing protections, and parallel-operation assurance." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Headline 7 words, exactly 4 accurate bullets covering all key facts; fully meets constraints and is clear/useful." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_bullets": 4 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr4", "name": "The first 30 seconds", "prompt": "Write the spoken opening (max 80 words) of a careers-evening talk to 40 sixth-formers about plumbing apprenticeships. It must earn attention in the first sentence with something concrete from these true facts: day-one pay £15k rising to £32k qualified; a Christmas Day callout; zero student debt. It must not begin with 'Hello' or 'Good evening' and must not introduce the speaker — banned phrase: 'my name is'.", "output": "Last Christmas Day, I fixed a burst pipe at 7am and was home by ten — paid triple time, with a mince pie thrown in.\n\nThat's plumbing. It's not glamorous, but here's the maths: you start earning £15,000 from day one, hit £32,000 once qualified, and finish with zero student debt. None. While your mates are borrowing fifty grand for lectures, you're being paid to learn.\n\nTonight I'll show you exactly how an apprenticeship works — and why I'd choose it again.", "latency_ms": 6439, "cost": 0.01178, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly meets all constraints. It is exactly 80 words, starts with a concrete fact (Christmas Day callout), avoids the banned greetings and phrases, and is highly engaging and appropriate for the target audience." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly 80 words and meets all explicit constraints. Strong concrete hook and clear benefits. Minor weakness: unsupported personal details and the “fifty grand” comparison may distract from the supplied facts." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all constraints: 77 words, strong concrete opener from facts, no banned phrases or intros. Clear, useful, accurate." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 80, "banned": [ "my name is" ] }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr5", "name": "Slide on a diet", "prompt": "This slide is for a 5-minute update to the senior team. Cut it to the bullets that help them DECIDE something — max 4 bullets, nothing else added. Slide 'Office move update': - Project kicked off on 4 June as agreed - Weekly meetings have been held every Tuesday - The project team has worked very hard - Three sites shortlisted, all within 2 miles of the station - Broadband installation lead time is 6 weeks, which is now the critical path - We looked at many options for furniture - Costs are tracking 8% under the £90k budget - The tone of meetings has been very positive - Decision needed by 30 September or we lose the preferred site.", "output": "**Office move update**\n\n- Three sites shortlisted, all within 2 miles of the station\n- Broadband installation lead time is 6 weeks — now the critical path\n- Costs tracking 8% under the £90k budget\n- **Decision needed by 30 September or we lose the preferred site**\n\nEverything else (kickoff date, meeting cadence, team effort, tone) is progress narration, not decision input — cut it. The final bullet is the ask, so it's bolded to make the required action unmissable in a 5-minute slot.", "latency_ms": 5617, "cost": 0.01244, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 4, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The prompt explicitly stated 'nothing else added', but the response included a title and a concluding paragraph of explanation, violating the constraint." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The four bullets are well chosen, concise, and decision-relevant. However, the response adds explanatory text beyond the slide content, violating “max 4 bullets, nothing else added.”" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "Bullets correctly prioritize decision info within max 4. Extra explanatory paragraph after bullets violates 'nothing else added'." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_bullets": 4 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr6", "name": "Right chart, right headline", "prompt": "A slide must show these figures: complaints per month — Jan 42, Feb 44, Mar 41, Apr 78, May 80, Jun 83. The April jump coincided with a new phone system. Say which chart type you would use and why (one sentence), write the slide headline as a FINDING (not 'Complaints data'), and name the one annotation you would add to the chart itself.", "output": "**Chart type:** A line chart, because it best shows the trend over time and makes the sharp discontinuity between March and April immediately visible.\n\n**Headline (as a finding):** \"Complaints nearly doubled after the new phone system launched in April\"\n\n**Annotation:** A vertical reference line (or callout arrow) at April labeled \"New phone system introduced\" — placing the likely cause directly on the chart so viewers connect the jump to the event without needing explanation.", "latency_ms": 5638, "cost": 0.00876, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing a single-sentence chart recommendation, an accurate finding-based headline, and a highly effective annotation. It is clear, concise, and highly useful for a professional presentatio" }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The chart choice, finding headline, and event linkage are accurate and clear. However, it offers two alternative annotations (“vertical reference line” or “callout arrow”) rather than naming exactly one annotation as requested." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly addresses all parts: correct chart choice with one-sentence rationale, finding-style headline, and single clear annotation. Clear, useful, concise." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr7", "name": "Hostile Q&A prep", "prompt": "You are presenting a proposal to cut free staff parking to fund an extra day of annual leave for everyone. Write the 5 hardest questions the audience will actually ask, numbered 1-5, one line each with the honest one-sentence answer on the same line after a dash. No sub-points, no softballs.", "output": "1. What about the staff who drive because there's no viable public transport to this site — aren't you just taxing them to fund a perk for people who already walk or cycle in? — Yes, the burden falls unevenly on car-dependent staff, and the honest answer is we're prioritising a universal benefit over an unequal one that only drivers currently receive.\n\n2. Have you actually costed this, or are you assuming parking savings equal the productivity cost of everyone taking an extra day off? — The parking savings cover the direct cost, but the lost-output cost of a company-wide extra day is real and we're absorbing it as a retention investment, not pretending it's free.\n\n3. Won't people just park on surrounding residential streets and make us the neighbour everyone hates? — Almost certainly some will, and we have no enforcement power over public roads, so we're relying on mitigation measures that may not fully work.\n\n4. Lower-paid staff often can't afford city parking rates or to live nearby — isn't this a pay cut for them dressed up as a benefit? — For a shift worker with no transit option, yes, this is effectively a net loss, and we'd need targeted support or exemptions to make that defensible.\n\n5. If this is really about fairness or sustainability, why does the proposal exempt executive and visitor parking? — Because leadership pushed back, and keeping those spaces was the political price of getting the proposal this far — which I accept undermines the fairness argument.", "latency_ms": 11484, "cost": 0.02507, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions, providing 5 genuinely difficult questions with honest, one-sentence answers on the same line after a dash. No sub-points are used, and the content is highly relevant and realistic." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Exactly five numbered, single-line question-and-answer entries. Questions are genuinely difficult, answers are candid, concise, and one sentence each, with no sub-points or softballs." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Perfectly matches format with five genuinely hard questions and blunt honest answers; no softballs or extras." } ], "machine_checks": { "exact_bullets": 5 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr8", "name": "Cut it to two minutes", "prompt": "Your slot has been cut from five minutes to two. Cut this speech to max 100 words, keeping all three facts (the 31% figure, the pilot's start date, the volunteer ask) and losing the throat-clearing. Return only the cut speech. Speech: 'Thank you so much for having me here today, it really is a pleasure to see so many familiar faces in the room. I know how busy everyone is, so I'll try to keep this brief. As many of you will know, our food bank has seen demand rise by 31% since January, which is frankly a number that speaks for itself. We have been thinking long and hard about how to respond. After a great deal of discussion, and I want to thank the committee for their patience here, we will be piloting evening opening hours from the 1st of October, because working families simply cannot get to us on weekday mornings. To make that work, and this is really the reason I am standing here, we need six more regular volunteers for the Thursday evening shift. If you can spare two hours a fortnight, please do speak to me afterwards.'", "output": "Our food bank has seen demand rise by 31% since January — a number that speaks for itself. Working families simply cannot reach us on weekday mornings, so from the 1st of October we will be piloting evening opening hours. To make that work, we need six more regular volunteers for the Thursday evening shift. If you can spare two hours a fortnight, please speak to me afterwards.", "latency_ms": 3898, "cost": 0.00937, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions. It cuts the throat-clearing, retains all three required facts, is well under the 100-word limit (67 words), and returns only the cut speech." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Retains all required facts: 31% demand rise, pilot starting 1st October, and request for six regular Thursday volunteers. Removes throat-clearing, stays well under 100 words, and is clear and usable." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Keeps all 3 facts, under 100 words, drops throat-clearing, returns only speech. Flawless cut." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 100 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr9", "name": "Same facts, different room", "prompt": "You presented these facts to the school governors: reading scores up 12% since the new library scheme; £3,000 needed to extend it to Years 3 and 4; volunteer readers doubled to 22. Now write what you would SAY to a Year 6 assembly about the same scheme (max 100 words) — same truth, their language, and one concrete thing you are asking the children themselves to do.", "output": "**Assembly script (Year 6):**\n\n\"Good morning, Year 6! Big news about our library scheme — it's working. Since it started, everyone's reading has got much better, and we now have 22 grown-up volunteers coming in to read with us. Twice as many as before!\n\nNext, we want Years 3 and 4 to join in too. We're raising the money to make that happen.\n\nHere's where you come in: we need Reading Buddies. If you'd spend one lunchtime a week reading with a younger child, sign up on the library door by Friday. You could be the reason someone falls in love with books.\"\n\n*(98 words — the 12% and £3,000 stay truthful but become \"much better\" and \"raising the money\", since percentages and budgets mean little to children; the ask is specific, doable, and has a deadline.)*", "latency_ms": 9247, "cost": 0.01832, "task_score": 5, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The response translates the facts well for the audience and includes a clear ask. However, the total word count (including title and meta-commentary) is 136 words, violating the 100-word maximum constraint." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 5, "violates": true, "reasoning": "The spoken script is 98 words, but the full response adds an explanatory note, exceeding 100 words. It gives a clear, concrete child action, but omits the required 12% and £3,000 facts and overstates results as everyone's reading improving." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Accurately adapts all facts into child-friendly language under 100 words; clear concrete ask with deadline; highly useful and concise assembly script." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 100 }, "machine_violation": true, "machine_reasons": [ "135 words against a maximum of 100" ] }, { "id": "pr10", "name": "Forty slides into five", "prompt": "'Take my 40-slide company induction deck and make it 5 slides without losing any information.' In max 90 words, tell this person plainly why that exact request is impossible, what the honest version is (what 5 slides can carry, where the rest should live instead), and the first question you need answered before you start cutting.", "output": "You can't compress 40 slides into 5 \"without losing anything\" — that's not summarizing, it's just smaller fonts. Compression means cutting, full stop.\n\nThe honest version: 5 slides can carry what new hires must *remember* — who we are, how we work, where to get help, their first-week actions. The other 35 slides' detail belongs in a searchable handbook or wiki they consult when needed, linked from the deck.\n\nFirst question: what must someone actually *do* after this induction? That tells me what survives the cut.", "latency_ms": 6026, "cost": 0.01075, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly addresses all prompts within the 90-word limit (86 words). It plainly explains why the request is impossible, provides a practical alternative for the remaining content, and asks a highly relevant guiding question." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Plainly explains why the exact request is impossible, offers a practical five-slide scope plus a searchable reference location for remaining detail, and asks a decisive first question. It is concise, professional, and under 90 words." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets 90-word limit (86 words); plainly explains impossibility, honest 5-slide scope plus handbook home, and key first question. Flawless on all criteria." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 90 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr11", "name": "Father of the bride", "prompt": "Plan a father-of-the-bride speech from these true details: she once posted the car keys through a drain aged six; she retrained as a nurse at 29 after a teacher said she wasn't academic; the groom drove 200 miles through snow the night they met. Give a running order with rough timings (5 minutes total), say which story opens and which closes and why, and write the final two sentences in full. Warm, and it must not mock anyone.", "output": "# Father-of-the-Bride Speech Plan (5 minutes total)\n\n## Running Order\n\n**1. Welcome & thanks — 0:00–0:45**\nGreet guests, thank everyone for coming (especially those who travelled), acknowledge the groom's family. Keep it brisk and warm.\n\n**2. Opening story: the car keys down the drain — 0:45–1:45**\nOpen with this one. It's the safest, funniest note to start on — a six-year-old's mishap is charming rather than embarrassing, it gets the room laughing early, and it belongs to childhood, which is exactly where a father's speech should begin. Frame it affectionately: even at six she was decisive, committed, and full of surprises — qualities the room will recognise in her today. The joke is about the situation, never about her.\n\n**3. The heart of the speech: retraining as a nurse — 1:45–3:15**\nThis is the emotional centre, so it goes in the middle where it has room to breathe. Tell it as a story of quiet courage: a teacher once said she wasn't academic; at 29 she decided that other people don't get to write her story, retrained as a nurse, and now cares for people at their most vulnerable. Important: don't mock or name the teacher — simply let her achievement answer for itself. This is where dad's pride lands. Allow a pause here; it's fine if voices wobble.\n\n**4. Closing story: the groom's 200 miles through snow — 3:15–4:15**\nClose with this. It's the right final story because it hands the speech over to the couple — the whole evening is heading toward their future, and this story is the beginning of it. It also lets the father publicly embrace the groom: a man who drove 200 miles through snow the night they met clearly recognised what the family has always known — that she's worth every mile. Link it back lightly: \"She once posted keys down a drain; he nearly lost his in a snowdrift getting to her. They were always going to work.\"\n\n**5. Toast — 4:15–5:00**\nOne line of blessing, invite guests to stand, raise the glass.\n\n## Final Two Sentences (in full)\n\n\"So when I look at these two — the girl who was told what she couldn't be and became it anyway, and the man who drove two hundred miles through the snow just for the chance to know her — I don't worry for a moment about the road ahead of them, because they've both already proved they'll go the distance. Ladies and gentlemen, please stand and raise your glasses: to the bride and groom!\"\n\n## Delivery Notes\n- ~130 words per minute; total script should be roughly 600–650 words.\n- Practise the pause after the nursing story — resist rushing it.\n- Look at the groom directly during the snow story; look at your daughter for the toast.", "latency_ms": 17118, "cost": 0.04831, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Flawless response. It perfectly incorporates all details, follows the structural constraints (timings, opening/closing rationale, final two sentences), and maintains a warm, non-mocking tone throughout. Highly useful and clear." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets every requested element: accurate warm stories, timed five-minute running order, clear opening and closing choices with reasons, non-mocking framing, and exactly two complete final sentences ending in a toast." }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 9, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Excellent structure, timings, story choices with clear rationale, warm non-mocking tone, and strong final sentences. Minor polish only." } ], "machine_checks": null, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] }, { "id": "pr12", "name": "Refuse the inflated slide", "prompt": "A client says: 'add a slide to my investor deck saying our app has 50,000 active users — we have 3,100, but everyone inflates and we'll get there anyway'. Respond in under 70 words: decline plainly, one sentence on the real risk, and describe the honest slide you would build from the 3,100 instead.", "output": "I can't put 50,000 on the slide — that's securities fraud, not optimism. If investors fund you based on a fabricated metric, they can sue, rescind, and your credibility is gone permanently. Instead, I'd build a slide around 3,100 active users with your growth rate, retention, and engagement depth — early traction with strong curves impresses smart investors more than a suspicious big number.", "latency_ms": 6925, "cost": 0.00897, "task_score": 10, "judges": [ { "judge": "google/gemini-3.1-pro-preview", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "The response perfectly follows all instructions and constraints. It is under 70 words, plainly declines, provides exactly one sentence on the severe risks, and offers a compelling, honest alternative slide. Highly useful and concise." }, { "judge": "openai/gpt-5.6-terra", "score": 8, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Clear, under 70 words, plainly declines, gives a concrete risk, and proposes an honest traction slide. Calling the statement definitively “securities fraud” is legally overbroad; it is potentially materially misleading rather than automatic" }, { "judge": "x-ai/grok-4.5", "score": 10, "violates": false, "reasoning": "Meets all constraints under 70 words; plain decline, clear risk sentence, honest slide description. Accurate, useful, concise." } ], "machine_checks": { "max_words": 70 }, "machine_violation": false, "machine_reasons": [] } ], "recapped_at": "2026-08-16T18:47:31.563Z", "recap_note": "Machine constraint caps applied retroactively under protocol judge-2026-08b; judge verdicts unchanged, task scores capped where a deterministic check failed." }